Skip to comments.Romney on Taxes: ‘I Want to Make Sure We Maintain the Progressivity of the Code’
Posted on 02/27/2012 5:27:15 PM PST by JSDude1
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said on Fox News Sunday that he wants to maintain the progressivity of the tax code so that as Americans make more money they are required to surrender increasing percentages of their earnings to the federal government in taxes.
Romney has a long record of opposing a flat tax--even investing more than $50,000 of his own money during the 1996 presidential campaign to run newspapers ads attacking then-presidential candidate Steve Forbess flat-tax proposal as a tax cut for fat cats.
Flat tax is fair tax. Your twenty percent is the same as my twenty percent...help wipe out class warfare. The only fair way.
Leftwing activist governor, leftwing activist party mole, leftwing activist candidate.
Tell me, how can that “village mullah” dour scold social Neanderthal Santorum be much worse than this guy?
Makes sense. After all, he IS a “progressive”.
No, a head tax is the only truely fair tax, but the main problem is about $2.5 billion in unconstitutional spending.
He's not worse, just different.
I think Santorum's loss to Obama would be of McGovern scale, costing maybe 100 House seats and a couple in the Senate. Romney will come closer, and some seats in Congress could be saved.
Either way, Obama gets a second term and the system changes.
I thought that Massachusetts was one of the few states without a progressive tax scale. Was I wrong? My information was from the 1980’s.
That is correct, but the people are not committed to ending it, and the GOP is split.
The significance of Romney is that he speaks for all those who think "the system" is basically sound but badly managed. This is of course an enormous error, but things have to get a lot worse before the people turn to a reformer - and by then, Obama will be re-elected.
I have never understood the “logic” behind progressive taxes. $1,000 to a man making $10,000 is the same impact as $10,000 is to a man making $100,000.
And which party’s nomination is Romney running for?
“I have never understood the logic behind progressive taxes. $1,000 to a man making $10,000 is the same impact as $10,000 is to a man making $100,000.”
You have never understood the “logic” of it because you are a rational, thinking person. In other words, not a Democrat.
how could anyone confuse this guy for a fiscal conservative?
I will never vote for Romney. If we are going to have a gun grabbing socialist empty suit in office, I would rather him be a Democrat.
Romney....just another Morman nincompoop
Another had a photo in his office.
He was an engineer so it was even funnier.
It was a picture of a man in a suit ( He looked like a fat Omar Sharif ), in a suit with a blindfold with a smile. He had one foot sock-less and was about to pull the trigger of a hand gun pointed at his foot.
I am beginning to think this Photo is the E-GOP's motus-operundi
Oh now, you know that! He SAYS he is, his lackeys in the media and GOP Establishment say he is, so he is! He's SEVERELY conservative! Just ask Ann Coulter, or Governor Krispy Kreme...
End of message.
The guy who pays 15 percent on millions wants to maintain the progressivity of the tax code.
I hope Newt wears romneys ass out over this.
What a loser! This is straight out of the communist manifesto and he does not care! We should never be taxed on our income! Never! THe founders would have never allowed it.
To hell with that. To hell with him.
The truth is Mitt doesn’t want to give up the ability the income tax provides the truly rich, who can arrange their affairs such that they have little in the way of “income”, for avoidance, nor the opportunities it (the income tax) provides government for it’s social engineering projects!
NO income tax can be fair for those reasons! Who get’s to decide what is , or is not, “income”?
What we need is a point of retail sale only sales tax which would make individual taxpayers anonymous to the tax collector! ONLY then will we be a TRULY free people!
I heard him say that. It was what he said & the way he said it. How can “conservatives” call him conservative?
The goal of the progressive tax is to 1) keep up and comers from getting big enough to challenge the elite, and 2) limit income for everybody. As Obama said, “at some point, you’ve made enough money.”
Mitt wants to make sure that he is all things to all people. He is no more for a progressive tax than he is for a regressive tax.
Mitt is for Mitt.
Again, Mittens is WRONG!
Obama is HALF right when he says: There is no reason a working person should pay a higher percentage of his income in taxes than someone making much more. (He forgets to mention that many “working people” pay no income taxes.)
The other HALF of that statement would be: There is no reason a working person should pay a LOWER percentage of his income in taxes than someone making much more.
Our current tax code in the name of “progressivity” allows a bit more than half of the population to avoid paying any income taxes. That half of the population are the ones who want more goods and services from “the government”. They would be unlikely to do so if they had to pay income taxes.
My proposal would be to set taxes at about 18% of income with the first $36,000.00 a person pays going into social security. (Yes, I would eliminate the slight of hand that the employer pays half of social security taxes. All taxes above $36,000.00 paid goes into the general fund.
While that proposal would lower the RATE which fat cats pay, it would eliminate ways to avoid paying taxes or reducing tax rates.
It would also downsize the Internal Revenue Service from an heir of the SS into a tax collection agency. The SS portion of the IRS would go after the underground economy populated by people who do not report their income.
But I guess Mittens does not get it.
No. Santorum nearly won Michigan and established himself as a solid conservative, something Mittens can never do.
Having made his mark with conservatives, Santorum has the political skills (many years as a Republican in Democratic Pennsylvania) to reach out to the rest.
Anything slick Romney tries will not be taken seriously, unless he somehow convinces the public that he is a real, genuine “man of the people.” That would be tough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.